Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
Nestorian.
(That's what I was called for making similar statements)
Your *claim* that whatever is outside Scripture is anti-Scriptural is itself outside Scripture, and therefore (according to the claim itself) anti-Scriptural. So if you are going to be consistent, you'll reject your own *claim*.
-A8
I am not so sure. Why would you think men related directly to Jesus would hesitate to claim that?
You, in fact, see the same thing with John the Baptist.
Even though Jesus was his cousin, you never see John mentioning that.
Yes, that is true. However, it appears that John did not know Jesus, even by sight, in the human sense. If they were related, they must have been distant cousins who probably did not meet until Christ's ministry began. John may not even had been aware of this relationship.
Regards
That's your private interpretation.
No, it is the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that 'sola scriptura' is both not in Scripture and false.
-A8
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church was wrong.
Yes, that is a good point worth discussing. I suppose it comes down to believing that Christ established a community that would continue in His teachings and that all was not made crystal clear to even the first Christians. It appears it is God's way that man explore and build on various knowledge, whether it is regarding science or religion. God condescends to our level, as we see in Scriptures. Thus, He works at our "speed" of "getting it".
Now, with this gradual understanding in mind, we also should keep in mind that the Church was given the power to bind and loosen - and that heaven would witness and vouch for this authoritative teachings and judgments. As such, when the mind of the Church (inspired by the Spirit) leads us to understand a previously shady part of revelation, we gradually come to accept it as God's Word to us. This is not an overnight process.
Regards
And the article that started this thread is about the NON-SCRIPTURAL PARTS of the movie. There is NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE about the Blessed Virgin having other children, having sex, etc. You might assume that these events occurred, but that doesn't make them right. And the reality is that what most of the Protestants on this thread have been doing is condoning the non-biblical portions of the movie and these non-biblical portions are what offends Catholics. Obviously, my comparison to what would happen if Jewish beliefs were portrayed incorrectly was lost on you, so I will not go through it again.
As for the assertion about "faith plus works" being a "false gospel," perhaps you should read the Epistle of James or the latter portion of Matthew Chapter 25. Now I realize that Luther tried his best to justify removing James from Canon, but couldn't do it, but it's there and it says what it says. And Matthew 25 IS GOSPEL and a direct quote from Christ. Paul DID NOT WRITE A GOSPEL, he wrote letters. The term "justified by faith" does not appear anywhere in the four Gospels, the term "by faith alone" does not appear in any true translation of Scripture.
Do you realize how circular this argument becomes? The Church will never agree with you because they have authority directly from Christ. Luther, et al invented "sola scriptura" some fourteen hundred years after the Apostolic Age. The word ALONE is not used anywhere in scripture in the manner in which Protestant fabrications require.
Wagglebee. You do not own biblical interpretation. The plain sense of the words indicate Mary did have sex and other children. You may disagree with the interpretation, but it isn't NON-SCRIPTURAL.
I'm sorry that you have decided to throw out Paul's letters. The gospel is contained therein. Of course, you are rejecting Jesus's words as well. Whoseover BELIEVES HAS ETERNAL LIFE. Period.
And by the way, since you obviously have the original scrolls and parchments in order to tell me authoritatively what a "true translation" of Scripture was, I suggest that it would be the "Christian" thing to do to share them with Biblical Archaeology Review so that the entire world can see them. I'll give Time Magazine a call. Maybe you can be Man of the year next year.
Just as circular as "The Church says its is right because the Church said it was right." and Mary was Immaculately conceived because She said she was.
In human terms, Jesus did not exist for all time, but was born of the virgin in Nazareth. In God's terms, Jesus ALWAYS exists, since God is in the present, the first and the last. The Word BECAME flesh - but this is God's condescension in the bible to enable us to understand Him. In God's "time", He always IS in the flesh....(does that twist your noodle?) I thought I explained that in a recent post.
He is not a nature but a person. That person, the 2nd person of the trinity, whose name means Jehovah Saves and God with us was eternally preexistent to Mary.
You are misunderstanding me. I certainly did not say that Jesus is a nature. He is the Hypostatic Union which in human time, did not exist before. Jesus is both God and man. This state of existence did not predate Mary - in human terms. Now, for God, certainly, Jesus always exists - but I do not think I will be able to explain how God IS creating the universe AND IS seeing to its end in one moment...
I reject Marian theology that finds its origin outside of Scripture because it is anti-Scriptural.
What a ridiculous statement... Everything that is said is thus anti-Scriptural unless it is a direct quote of Scriptures. Have you considered that your understanding of Scriptures is lacking?
Regards
No, I rely upon the Church's.
The plain sense of the words indicate Mary did have sex and other children. You may disagree with the interpretation, but it isn't NON-SCRIPTURAL.
Unless you can provide scriptural statements saying that MARY had other children and had sex, then I will continue to believe that it is not in scripture.
I'm sorry that you have decided to throw out Paul's letters.
All I said was that he did not write a Gospel.
The gospel is contained therein.
As it is in James.
Of course, you are rejecting Jesus's words as well. Whoseover BELIEVES HAS ETERNAL LIFE. Period.
This is NOT WHAT Jesus said in Matthew 25.
And by the way, since you obviously have the original scrolls and parchments in order to tell me authoritatively what a "true translation" of Scripture was,
On the contrary, it would be the job of Luther, et al to provide original scrolls that contain the phrase "faith alone." I do not need to prove a negative (which cannot be done, but I daresay that that is a different topic). I suggest that it would be the "Christian" thing to do to share them with Biblical Archaeology Review so that the entire world can see them. I'll give Time Magazine a call. Maybe you can be Man of the year next year.
So now you are mocking me personally because you disagree with two thousand years of Catholic teaching and tradition?
They were more than that. They were are merely rituals, but they are God's power working in a visible way. Otherwise, you have God acting in an esoterical and abstract way that is not detectable by humanity.
You are massively confused on the book of Romans. Those evil Joooooos. All means all, buddy. And newsflash, that includes you.
LOL! Perhaps you can explain, then, on how the bible notes MANY different people as being righteous? Just in the NT, I see Joseph, Zechariah, and Elizabeth. In the Psalms, over and over there is talk about those who are righteous and turn to the Lord. You are confused because you think that if one is righteous, it is because of their OWN work. NO ONE who is righteous makes that claim - it is based on God's work within that person. Nevertheless, the person is righteous and made so by God Himself.
Regards
Are saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary LIED, but it was still included in Canon? What other LIES do you believe are in the Bible?
You have mischaracterized what I am refering to as anti-Scriptural.
Against Scripture. Contrary to Scripture.
1)Saying Mary was 14 years old when she conceived is NOT anti-Scriptural. It doesn't contradict Scripture. It may be true it may be false.
2) Saying Jesus was 33 years old when he died IS Anti-Scriptural. I'll let you figure out why (and it has nothing to do with his eternal pre-existence).
Read my definition more carefully. I said that Mary didn't give birth to God's divine nature. How is that Nestorian?
Ask A8. I said the same thing.
Boy are you out in left field... Did Jesus die or not? Shall we change your name from "Nestorian" to "Docetist"?
No, according to you, you said something "similar".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.